Talk:Wighard

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- CaseKid 22:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wighard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 14:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings to all, especially to Ealdgyth for nominating it and more importantly for improving and expanding the article so much. Certainly no quick-fail criteria apply, so I'll get straight down to a detailed review. Best. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 14:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Detailed Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No spelling errors. Punctuation in order. A few minor points edited. The only sentences I am not happy with are "His death possibly occurred around 664, but may have been as late as 667. It was perhaps due to the bubonic plague, or perhaps due to some other disease epidemic." I think we need to rephrase these, especially since the perhaps is repeated in the same sentence which sounds a bit wordy.  Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Wikilinks ok but I think we need a few more linked in for clarity - for example Kent and Mercia, York, consecration, canonically - since some of these words are quite technical (I'm going to leave it to you because you'll know much better exactly what the right links should be too - for example, for the York link, should be link it to Archdiocese of York or just York seeing as obviously the point is creating this as an archdiocese?); Words to watch fine; Layout fine (one might question whether Life could be split into subsections, but seeing as the only things we really know about him are concerning his ascent to archbishop and his subsequent death, I doubt there is much point). The only thing that I am a little unsure about is whether it ok to call him Archbishop of Canterbury in the first sentence, since he was never consecrated, and NDOB calls him Archbishop-elect. Very happy to discuss this. I did notice that later on he is referred to as archbishop-elect: we need consistency probably.  Done
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All sources used are indeed referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All in-line citations are present where necessary.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, the article is fairly short, but since there are so few sources available, and more importantly because the main aspect is his archbishop selection, this is fine.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No digression. Detail covered sufficiently.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fairly contentious topic, but the opinions are not presented as facts and are always cited to reliable secondary sources. Article does well not to engage in any disputes, but rather recounts them.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems here.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Would be nice if any with fair-use rationales could be added. These would certainly improve the article but are in no way intrinsic to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	Just waiting on establishing the lead, and it's there.  Done

It's probably a crap-shoot either way, honestly. Blair thinks he was consecrated. He was certainly considered one by most later commentators - but on the other hand, most seem to feel he wasn't consecrated. Things are a bit more fluid in this period of the middle ages, so if you're insistent I'll change to 'elect" but otherwise, given Blair, I'm more inclined to be inclusive. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• reworded the objecting sentence to: "His death possibly occurred around 664,[10] but may have been as late as 667. It may have been caused by the bubonic plague,[5] or perhaps was due to some other disease epidemic." Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Kent is linked in the lead (and the second usage is consistent with that linkage - it's referring to the region, not the kingdom here), linked York to Diocese of York, linked consecration, just removed canonically, as it was fluff. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Got Mercia too, forgot to mention that. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • How about something like this for the lead (roughly - I am sure it can be worded better still): Wighard was a mediaeval archbishop-elect of Canterbury. Inconsistencies between various works have led to confusion about whether he was ever consecrated by Pope Vitalian. What little is known... and the rest. This way we are definitely telling the truth - he was definitely an archbishop-elect, whether consecrated or not. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    • We could even put in the fact that he might have been the seventh e.g. ...he was ever consecrated by Pope Vitalian as the seventh Archbishop of Canterbury. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
      • See if what I just tried works better for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, I like that. I don't have very strong views on the matter, but if we are changing it to how it is (which I think is better), should we also change the infobox title? Also, not that it matters terribly, what are your view on capitalising the first letters in the infobox? There doesn't seem to be much consistency regarding this on the site, and I couldn't find anything in the MoS referring to it. Personally, I think that capitalising it looks better, but I guess that's just my opinion. Also, I think that it might be an idea to put in something in the lead about the pronunciation of the word - I'll definitely leave that to you! Otherwise, I think it's pretty awesome. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I dont know enough about IPA to even dream of doing a pronuciation in the lead. Changed the title in the infobox, and I've just been leaving non-sentences in the infoboxes uncapitalized. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
            • It's not necessary, but it might help. Anyhow, I think it passes now. Great job! Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fictional appearances/in popular culture

I see rather than address the issue that it's trivia, this section has just been editwarred back in. First, it's implying that Wighard went to the Synod of Whitby - it's unclear if he did or not. Second, it's trivia and tells us nothing about Wighard. Third, it's unsourced. The proper response when something you add is removed is not to readd it but to address the issues raised on the talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree - it isn't backed by secondary sources explaining what this tells us about Wighard as a subject. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Trivia and irrelevant. Once these fictional references sections start, they balloon like a festering boil. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)